So why does this coating occur? During the winter season, romaine lettuce is grown in Yuma Arizona. During the months of December through February the Yuma growing region can easily see sub-freezing nights with temperatures reaching into the low twenties. This will cause the outer skin of romaine lettuce to experience a type of “freeze burn” which results in a “blistering” of the skin, much like what would happen if human skin experienced a burn.

What some shoppers are seeing when they peel back what appears to be plastic, is the natural healing process of the lettuce. The blistering causes the skin to separate from the lettuce and can then be easily peeled off of the romaine head. This effect is called “Epidermal Peel” and is a very natural occurrence after a freeze. It does nothing to affect the safety of the product – it’s strictly a cosmetic alteration.

Even if there was some type of plastic coating being used on romaine lettuce, it could not be used on certified organic product. Coatings that would be approved for spraying directly onto organic products must contain only ingredients included on the National List, NOP sections 205.605 and 205.606 and plastic is not included on this list.

We even contacted our romaine growers in the Yuma growing region for their feedback and assurance, and while none of them were aware of the video, they assured us that they never have nor ever will use plastic or any other substance not approved by the USDA and National Organic Standards. It’s the law, and if you want your product to be certified as organic then you must comply with the standards.

Thanks for your concern and for your understanding.

If we fail to resolve this issue, we run the risk of condemning up to 3 billion people to a life of poverty. Unfortunately, in the world today, it’s nearly impossible to get political leaders across the globe to focus on sustainable development and growth. What’s most cost effective and expedient rules the day.

The U.N.’s “High-Level Panel on Global Sustainability,” which issued the report, calls on the international community to form a “new political economy” for sustainable development that “recognizes that in certain environmental domains, such as climate change, there is ‘market failure’, which requires both regulation and what the economists would recognize as the pricing of ‘environmental externalities’, while making explicit the economic, social and environmental costs of action and inaction.”

While the panel finds that the current problems of resource and population challenges can be fixed with sound public policy, they conclude that major reforms of the global economy must be undertaken quickly. “Tinkering on the margins will not do the job,” they write. “The current global economic crisis …offers an opportunity for significant reforms.”

Our rising global population is as serious a threat as climate change. Combine the two issues and that’s the barrel we are currently looking down. We must begin to take these issues far more seriously than we have to date. We need progressive and thoughtful public policy, otherwise, our legacy will have been to hand off to the next several generations a world that’s barely manageable. It’s amazing how we (the big global we) respond to so many issues with such passion, purpose, and focus – why not with the issues of climate change and population growth? If we don’t have a sudden epiphany and begin to right the course, the many other issues that we so fervently support and work for, won’t have a home to be issues in the first place.

While 2011 saw the largest number of acres planted since 1999, harvested acres and bales are expected to be down by 38 and 45 percent, respectively, due to a devastating drought in the Southern Plains. The extremely dry conditions in Texas forced farmers there to abandon more than 65 percent of their planted crop in 2011.

A modest acreage gain of two percent is forecast for 2012, bringing plantings of U.S. organic cotton to 16,406 acres. Another two percent net gain is in the five-year forecast, bringing the total to 16,716 acres.

I know these numbers on a crop that we don’t even eat can seem pretty dry and uninteresting, but organic cotton is very significant to the overall health and well being of our farming community. There are a number of important differences between conventional and organic cotton. Starting from the tilling of the soil to the selection of seeds, labor paid and water used, organic cotton farming requires significant investment of time and resources to radically overhaul conventional cotton growing methods. Thus, growth in organic cotton production is important for several reasons:

1) Cotton is a crop that attracts a wide range of insects and this is one of the reasons why it is one of the largest pesticide dependent crops in the world.

2) Conventional seeds are treated with herbicides and insecticides and are frequently genetically modified while are organic seeds are untreated and GMO- free.

3) Conventional soil uses synthetic fertilizers; requires intensive irrigation, and creates soil loss through mono-crop plantings. Organic cotton benefits from using beneficial insects and other natural methods for insect and weed control.

4) With the harvesting of conventionally grown cotton, defoliation is induced using toxic chemicals, while with organic cotton defoliation occurs naturally from freezing temperatures or through the use of water management.

It’s nice to see organic cotton growing as an industry, although it’s nowhere near the volume of conventionally raised cotton. Still, we’ll take progress where we can.

Wear Green Cotton.

With a unique organic waste program currently in a trial stage, the city of Watervliet is expecting to decrease the amount of actual garbage sent to the local landfill, which will help save the environment and save the city money.

The first curbside pickup of the pilot Watervliet Organic Waste program (WOW) is set for today. About 35 residents, mainly city employees, are participating in the service but the city would like to include a total of 50 people in the trial program to work out any issues or bugs before eventually offering it to the residents city-wide in several months, said Watervliet Mayor Mike Manning.

According to a recent survey of the participating residents, they are putting much less actual garbage out than before since most items are either going in the recycling bin or in the organic waste bin.

“It’s working out well. And it’s cleaner and easier than we initially expected,” said Manning, who is also participating in the trial that is expected to last about 10 weeks.

Because there is less garbage, the city expects to pay less in landfill tipping fees. About 25 percent in current landfill costs, or $100,000 annually, will likely be saved, said Manning.

Though, the program also comes with an initial price of at least $30 per household for an indoor bin and outdoor bin for the organic waste. The program uses a newly-developed composting and digestion system using an anaerobic digester. The digested compost is recycled and methane gas is captured that could be used for fuel or heating.

Organic waste items include most food items like vegetables or fruits. Trial participants, who are asked to weigh and record the organic waste, use an indoor bin lined with a certain type of bag that is carried out every other week to the outdoor bin. Residents were asked to put out their waste Thursday night and it will be picked up today by a pickup truck.

Your own backyard, your own community – these are great starting points when you want to make a difference. Carry on Watervliet!

I often have the same experience when I shop for food. I don’t necessarily need to choose between 20 different kinds of butter. Just an organic butter works fine for me. All of this explains why I found this video below by Sheena Lyengar entitled, How to Make Choosing Easier, a very interesting view.

There’s some good stuff about the psychology of choice as well as some practical advice about how customers respond in a retail setting when making their selections amidst a crowded field of products. Enjoy the video.

As always, we will do our best to provide you with the finest quality fresh organic produce available, but it’s important to understand that because of the severity of this freeze and the breadth of products that are affected, we expect to see limited availability and higher pricing on some key items.

It’s important that we also help the consumer understand this issue as they shop in your store. To this end, we have created a sign explaining this current state of weather and its impact on our food supply. The sign is in PDF format so you can easily download, print out, laminate, and post in your department. Click Here or on the image of the sign to see the PDF and begin your download

We will do our best to keep you informed of the enduring affect of this freeze, and as always, we appreciate your support and will continue to serve you with the best organic produce available.

Even if you are an organic farm and would never consider using Genetically Modified seeds, you can still be sued by Monsanto. If your farm shows more than “trace amounts” of their seed, even if the seeds entered your field(s) blown in by the wind or carried in by birds, Monsanto can and will go after you. Recognizing this, a group of organic farmers in the U.S. and Canada have filed a “pre-emptive” lawsuit against Monsanto in order to protect themselves should any of Monsanto’s transgenic seeds accidentally make their way into their fields.

U.S. District Judge Naomi Buchwald said she will hear oral arguments Jan. 31 in Manhattan on a motion by St. Louis, Mo.-based Monsanto to dismiss the suit filed last March 31 by a group of 83 farmers, seed growers and farm organizations.

The suit “seeks court protection for innocent family farmers who may become contaminated by Monsanto seed,” according to a release last week from the Colorado-based lead plaintiff, the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association (OSGATA).

The suit, the plaintiffs claim, is “to protect themselves from being accused of patent infringement should their crops ever become contaminated by Monsanto’s genetically modified seed.”

“Monsanto’s technology is harmful for organic producers and processors,” COG executive director Beth McMahon said in a separate release this week. “To penalize our growers for GMO contamination adds insult to injury, and we won’t back down from this fight.”

Monsanto’s previous suits against farmers for alleged infringement on its patented seed suggest the company “intends to assert its transgenic seed patents against certified organic and non-transgenic seed farmers who come to possess more than ‘trace amounts’ of Monsanto’s transgenic seed, even if it is not their fault,” the plaintiffs claimed last year.

The irony here is that Monsanto is a leading company fighting against what it considers the over-reach of government regulations, all the while, its tight grip and regulatory hold on farmers is unprecedented and bringing the control of our food supply into the hands of a few biotech companies who (despite their promotional materials) are not interested in the democratization of our food supply.

The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act requires the FDA to prevent consumer deception by clarifying that a food label is misleading if it omits significant, “material” information. In 1992 however, the FDA issued a policy statement that defined “material” by the ability to be sensed by taste, smell, or other senses. The FDA determined that GE Foods were “substantially equivalent” to conventionally produced foods, so there was no material difference – and no labeling was required. After almost 20 years, this policy is still in effect today.

For example, a salmon that is genetically engineered to produce hormones throughout the year is not, according to the FDA, materially different from a non-genetically engineered salmon because it does not taste, smell or feel different. And without a label to tell us differently, when eating salmon, we would not know if what we were consuming had been genetically altered.

Got that? Because we can’t detect it with our senses, genetically modified food does not need any labeling clarification. It’s a pretty insulting policy statement. The best I can determine, what they’re saying is, we don’t really want you to think about how your food was raised, or take the time to assess how the growing process impacts what you eat – just give it a little sniff, and if it tastes OK, well, then there’s nothing to worry about. This is literally comparable to kicking the tires when you’re looking to purchase a new car. Based on this criterion, it wouldn’t even be necessary to label food as organic. It doesn’t really taste, smell, or feel any different than conventionally grown food. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again… this is why we can’t have nice things.

We have the right to know what’s in our food! I encourage you to visit Just Label It and sign the petition calling for the FDA to label genetically modified food.